UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

In the Matter of

Stephen Briggs

CFTC Docket No. 98-E-2

Order

On May 11, 1998, we received a petition from
Stephen Briggs asking us to stay disciplinary action pending Commission
review of an adverse decision by the New York Mercantile Exchange
("NYMEX"). The decision became effective May 13, 1998, and
imposes a one year suspension, $100,000 fine, and a permanent prohibition
from executing customer orders.1/

Under Commission Rule 9.24(d), a petitioner must
establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he will
suffer irreparable harm if a stay is denied, that grant of the stay
would not cause substantial harm to the exchange or market
participants, and that grant of the stay would not be contrary to the
Commodity Exchange Act ("Act") and the rules, regulations and
orders of the Commission or otherwise contrary to the public
interest.

Briggs's burden is a heavy one and has not
been met here. Briggs merely challenges the credibility findings of the
NYMEX appeal panel and charges that they did not follow Commission
precedent in imposing sanctions. In reviewing exchange disciplinary
actions, the Commission reweighs the the factual evidence only to
correct plain error. In re Clark, [1992-1994 Transfer Binder]
Comm. Fut. L. Rep. ¶ 25,751 (CFTC June 22, 1993). We conclude that
Briggs has not demonstrated the likelhood of success on the merits.
Id. Thus, even if Briggs were to make a strong showing under the
other elements of a stay, we would not issue a stay.

Briggs argues that he will be irreparably harmed
because he lost his largest customer and will be unable to earn an
income from trading. However, loss of income and damage to one's
reputation as a result of a challenged agency action "falls far
short" of the type of irreparable injury necessary for injunctive
relief. Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 91-92 (1974). See
also, Haltmier v. CFTC, 554 F.2d 556, 564 (2d Cir. 1977).
Moreover, payment of a fine is not irreparable harm.

The public interest would not be served by a
stay pending our review. The Commission has been entrusted to enforce
fair practice and honest dealing in the futures markets. Silverman
v. CFTC, 562 F.2d 432, 438 (7th Cir. 1977). NYMEX found that Briggs
committed violations which we consider egregious andundermine public
confidence in the integrity of the futures markets.2/ The "necessity of protection to the
public far outweighs any personal detriment resulting from the impact
of the applicable laws." Haltmier, 554 F.2d at 564. Further
delay in the imposition of sanctions would only continue the threat to
the markets.

We find that Briggs failed to demonstrate that
he has met the requirements for grant of a stay. Accordingly, we deny
his petition to stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

By the Commission (Chairperson BORN and
Commissioners TULL, HOLUM, and SPEARS).

Jean A. Webb

Secretary of the Commission

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Dated: May 22, 1998

1 / Briggs requested ex
parte review pursuant to Commission Rule 9.24(e). That rule provides that
the Commission may act without waiting for the exchange's response if
the petitioner

(1) Expressly requests an ex parte stay;

(2) Files a proof of service; and

(3) Clearly establishes by affidavit that immediate and irreparable
injury, loss or damage will result to the petitioner before the
exchange can be heard in opposition.

As explained in our order, Briggs did not establish immediate and
irreparable injury. Accordingly, we did not grant ex parte review.

2 / The violations
include, but are not limited to, prearranged and noncompetitive trading,
trading opposite customer orders, and reporting trades out of sequence.